Claims in high-profile false advertising case vs Dannon not plausible, court rules

Judge tosses ‘speculative’ lawsuit over ‘all-natural’ status of dairy products from cows fed GM feed

By Elaine Watson

- Last updated on GMT

Claims in all-natural GMO lawsuit vs Dannon not plausible, court rules

Related tags Federal gmo labeling Milk Genetically modified food Genetically modified organism

A judge has granted Dannon’s motion to dismiss a high-profile false advertising lawsuit alleging shoppers were misled by its ‘all-natural’ claims on dairy products from cows that may have eaten GM feed.

In a complaint against Dannon* ​filed in New York last year, plaintiff Polly Podpeskar alleged that reasonable consumers would not expect yogurts labeled ‘all-natural’ to use milk from cows likely fed a diet containing genetically engineered soy or corn.

The case has been watched closely given how widely 'natural' claims are used on dairy products from cows that may have consumed GM feed.

To support her claims, Podpeskar cited – among other things – consumer survey data suggesting that most US consumers believe a ‘natural’ label on meat or poultry products should mean that the animals’ feed contained no GMOs.

She added: “Reasonable consumers believe that if a cow consumes GMO grass, corn, or soy and then produces milk, the milk is not all natural, and products derived from the milk, such as yogurt, are likewise not all natural.”

Dannon: This daisy-chained, twice ‘derived’ allegation is unsupported

In its motion to dismiss the case, however, Dannon (now part of DanoneWave​) said no reasonable consumer would follow Podpeskar’s “daisy-chained”​ logic.

It argued: “This daisy-chained, twice ‘derived’ allegation is unsupported by any authority and must fail. Plaintiff does not allege how any purportedly ‘unnatural’ characteristic moves through the supply chain from the feed, to the cows, to the milk, to the products, or articulate how a reasonable consumer would be misled. 

"The mere consumption of genetically modified food simply cannot affect the genetic makeup of the organism consuming it.”

Moreover, the logic deployed in the lawsuit “has not been adopted by the FDA and has been rejected by both courts and Congress​,” argued Dannon, which also noted that federal GMO labeling legislation​ signed into law last year by President Obama does not extend GMO labeling to products made from milk or meat from animals fed GM feed.

Judge: Plaintiff’s argument is ‘too speculative’

In a December 3, 2017 order dismissing the case that is likely to be viewed with some relief by many dairy companies, US district judge Katherine B Forrest agreed with Dannon, noting that a court handling a similar false advertising lawsuit about ‘non-GMO’ claims on dairy products fed GM feed (Gallagher v. Chipotle Mexican Grill​) rejected a similar claim at the pleading stage.

As in Gallagher, plaintiff’s claims here should be dismissed,” ​said Forrest.

“There is no legal support for the idea that a cow that eats GMO feed or is subjected to hormones or various animal husbandry practices produces ‘unnatural’ products; furthermore Dannon does not specifically represent that its products are either GMO-free or not given hormones or antibiotics.

“The court therefore finds plaintiff’s argument too speculative to state a plausible claim and grants defendant’s motion to dismiss.”

*The case is Polly Podpeskar v Dannon Company Inc, 7:16-cv-08478 filed in the southern district of New York on October 31, 2016. 

New federal GMO labeling legislation​ ​(the details of which are being thrashed out by USDA​) will not​ require GMO labeling on milk or meat from animals fed GM feed. However, it does not make any reference to whether you can call such products ‘natural’ or ‘all-natural.’

The FDA surprised many stakeholders by announcing a probe​ ​into what ‘natural’ should mean on a food label in 2015, prompting a deluge of feedback​, ​but has not said when it plans to report back.

Related news

Show more

Related products

show more

Mastering taste challenges in good-for-you products

Mastering taste challenges in good-for-you products

Content provided by Symrise | 12-Sep-2023 | White Paper

When food and beverage manufacturers reduce sugar, salt, or fat and add fibers, minerals or vitamins, good-for-you products can suffer from undesirable...


Show more

USDA FSIS 'natural'

Posted by hoffman humphrey,

Here's the definition of "natural" according to the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). FSIS is the agency responsible for ensuring the truthfulness and accuracy in labeling of meat and poultry products.
Natural: A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as "no artificial ingredients; minimally processed")

While GMOs are not scientifically proven to be safe---nothing is scientifically proven to be safe, science doesn't work that way---GMOs are in no way artificial. I am not a lawyer (and don't even play one on tv), but I can say that as far as the science claim goes in this suit, genetic modification does not disqualify an animal or plant product from being labeled as "natural"

And as for any concerns regarding the safety of GMOs, I would encourage people to consider the opinion of Nobel laureate scientists on the issue:

Report abuse

GMOs are scientifically proven safe science, nothing to fear but your own imagination

Posted by Jackie Schmidt,

This court decision was right. Milk from cows fed GMO feed Is very safe to consume and is a non-issue. Anyone who has any "fears" of GMOs doesn't know what they are talking about and was most likely rejected as a job applicant at Monsanto when they were young. Get over it, GMOs are safe and stop scaring consumers and hungry people.

Report abuse

Robert Wager

Posted by Robert Wager,

There is so much false, fear inducing misinformation on the web about this topic. A good place to start is "Planting the Future" by the European Academies Science Advisory Council 2013. Its free to download on-line.

"There is no validate evidence that GM crops have greater adverse impact on health and the environment than any other technology used in plant breeding...There is compelling evidence that GM crops can contribute to sustainable development goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the environment and the economy...It is vital that sustainable agricultural production and food security harnesses the potential of biotechnology in all its facets."

Report abuse

Follow us


View more